I bet they're distraught. -- | ___ Salad Dodger |/ \ _/_____\_ GL1500SEV/CBR1100XXX/KH500A8/TS250C |_\_____/_| ..62661../..14297.../..3157./.19406 (>|_|_|<) TPPFATUICG#7 DIAABTCOD#9 YTC#4 PM#5 |__|_|__| BOTAFOT #70 BOTAFOF #09 two#11 WG* \ |^| / IbW#0 & KotIbW# BotTOS#6 GP#4 \|^|/ ANORAK#17 '^'
[King Michael] ITYF that the archer was in fact English, one of the garrison at Rouen which was the HQ of the King during his conflict with the French.
Ummm, yes that's to destroy your economy love. Ask the Japanese how they liked it. --------------------------------------------------------------- Useful George Bush stats: Born 1946 Graduated 1975 (29 years to attain Masters) First known job 1989 (bought Texas Rangers with daddy's money) ---------------------------------------------------------------
Pip <> spouted the following in Ah, fair enough. Will shakeapeare had it sussed apparently, he alludes to the illegitimacy in Richard III.
Indeed, but Everyone knew his parentage, it was out in the open. He was actually known as william le Batard. Whereas the illegitimacy of Edward was denied and covered up. William actually had a reasonably royal descent on both sides of his family and prolly had a better claim to the English throne through his heredity than The house of Godwine. Whereas a low born archer is definitely a desecration of the royal gene pool. (Ackshully, prolly an improvement through the introduction of fresh blood but the royals who perpetuated their divine right to rule and legitimacy through their bloodline couldn't admit that). The new evidence which has come to light proving Edwards illegitimacy is quite embarassing for the royals.
IIRC Will was being a bit canny portraying Richard III as a monster etc - 'cos the Queen at the time was the grand-daughter of the guy what invaded England and killed said Richard III.
What makes you think the world revolves round you and your points? How do you think William managed to assemble an army of Normans Bretons and Others in the first place?
I don't, but it seems like either you genuinely think I do or its a feeble attempt to deflect attention from the weakness of your arguments.
In message <[email protected]>, tallbloke Is it? Consider that it's a long time ago and that leaderships change hands by various means regardless that you call it "monarchy", "dictatorship" etc. You can even make a case for hereditary democracy, see ancient Rome and the USA. Overall I doubt it'll change anything [1] and anyway IF the right bloke had been king then he may not have married the same burd and therefore changed all his descendants. So you could say [2] that we'd end up with the same Queen as we have today. [1] Quite happy with the current situation thanks [2] Infinite universes permitting -- Tim two#21, YGL#3 & BOTAFOT#84 Due to the limitations of current email, the lip movements may be out of synchronisation as you move your finger under the text while reading. tim dot ukrm2 at dsl dot pipex dot com
World wide it could be oil and gas not just oil. They have got huuuuge reserves within the "Russian" states.
I don't pretend to be an expert on it but what I've read and heard: The US prints 8 to 10% more dollars than it can support. This gives it it's expanding economy. It is able to do this without rampant inflation because the 'world' has to buy dollars to buy oil. If the 'world' buys oil in Euros the US goes from an expanding economy to massive inflation followed by economic collapse in an estimated five years. Worth going to war about........................? So what would they do about the Russians? Invade and liberate them?
Hmm, another reason why the UK should join the Euro pronto then; if this scenario is realistic. I must admit though, whilst I understand that the demand for dollars will keep the dollars exchange rate 'high' (although this demand appears to be slipping..) and that a high exchange rate will make local goods more competitive with cheap imports I'm not quite sure why the low exchange rate would impact inflation. Is this monetarism and the fact there's lots of dollars sloshing around means that prices go up?
The 'Russian Federation' has roughly one third of the world's known 'recoverable' natural gas reserves. As for oil, the oil producing areas of UAE, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia form a triangle with an area about equal to the state of Oklahoma. That triangle contains 75% of the world's oil. That's if you believe some of the oil reserve figures put out by OPEC. Which I don't. HTH
Who's arguing? If you read my first reply to you, you might realise that by the use of the word 'indeed', I was agreeing with your statement.
One of my favourites. I also thought about "The Young British Soldier" http://www.readbookonline.net/readOnLine/2711/ a few years ago.
